-->
@keithprosser
I am sure we are all enlightened by those two very detailed historical analyses.
- One of my favorite sketches.
Islam, " only a tiny minority".
Posts
Total:
259
-->
@Mopac
The Church certainly does not condone the killing of others for their beliefs. It is built into the faith that we prefer to patiently wait in hopes that they are lead to repentance.
- That's indeed good. I was referring to history.
-->
@Yassine
This is completely irrelevant to your OP,
Yes I know. It shouldn't be allowed that one can bury conversations or posts that they are not comfortable with. But there you are. This thread is done anyway.
The Myth of the "Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg&t=114s
-->
@Yassine
A closer examination of histoory will show that often times the same institutions that would persecute pagans in the name of Christ also made many Christian martyrs.
These institutions are not The Church, which does not exercise secular authority.
-->
@Yassine
The difference is, you impose your values on everybody regardless of their beliefs, while in Islam this extends only to the believers.
If so, something you must clear up is why thousands of Sudanese protested in the street for the execution of Gillian Gibbons for naming a teddy bear 'Mohammed' and why Asia Bibi - a Christian - was convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan.
Further, I do not dispute that there are 'non-extreme' interpretations of the verses trotted out to 'prove' Islam is violent. But it isn't just Islamophobes who prefer simple, violent interpretations is it? It seems that Muslims are increasingly influenced by the simple. literal interpreations and less by subtle, progressive interpretations. Can you comment on that?
-->
@keithprosser
There is no Islamic priesthood in the orthodox sense. Islam is about as anarchistic as protestantism when it comes to religious leadership.
That being the case, there is plenty of room to allow so called "extremists" to get away with what they do.
I would like to again relay this story of my Bishop who went to the middle east for his education. He was speaking to an Imam, and was telling him that there were good Muslims in The United States, even a town completely populated by Muslims with a giant mosque and everything. The response he got from the Imam was shocking. "They were not good Muslims. If they were good Muslims, they would have taken up arms and subjugated the state by now."
Whether or not this is orthodox Muslim teaching is debatable I'm sure, but the fact is that these people are allowed to act as spiritual fathers is aided by the fact that Islam is not really well organized as a religion.
-->
@Mopac
There is no Islamic priesthood in the orthodox sense. Islam is about as anarchistic as protestantism when it comes to religious leadership.
- False. Authority is Islam is derived from the Prophet (pbuh) through religious inheritance, by the Ulama (scholars). A scholar is a person who has achieved the degree of Ijtihad (independent mastery) who is licensed in one of the classical schools of thought, & who has a Sanad (chain of authority) going to the Prophet (pbuh) himself.
That being the case, there is plenty of room to allow so called "extremists" to get away with what they do.
- That's the case for non-traditional Islam, like Wahabism -who resemble Protestants in their approach & methodology.
I would like to again relay this story of my Bishop who went to the middle east for his education. He was speaking to an Imam, and was telling him that there were good Muslims in The United States, even a town completely populated by Muslims with a giant mosque and everything. The response he got from the Imam was shocking. "They were not good Muslims. If they were good Muslims, they would have taken up arms and subjugated the state by now."
- This just proves your utter ignorance of Islam. An "imam" is not a religious authority, & never has been. Literally any Muslim can be an imam, you just lead people in prayer, I have done that countless times in my life. The Ulama are the religious authority.
Whether or not this is orthodox Muslim teaching is debatable I'm sure, but the fact is that these people are allowed to act as spiritual fathers is aided by the fact that Islam is not really well organized as a religion.
- No. It's not debatable. You don't invent rulings & decide God's religion, that's the highest form of Shirk -by taking God's position in His stead. Only authoritative opinions & rulings are acceptable in the religion. That imam is going to be accountable for his inventions & actions to God -like any other Muslim, & his title is not going to save him. Though I do agree that there is a crisis of authority in the Muslim world, thankfully not as bad as is the case in the Christian world.
-->
@keithprosser
The difference is, you impose your values on everybody regardless of their beliefs, while in Islam this extends only to the believers.If so, something you must clear up is why thousands of Sudanese protested in the street for the execution of Gillian Gibbons for naming a teddy bear 'Mohammed' and why Asia Bibi - a Christian - was convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan.
- You have not addressed anything I said, nor have you defended the forcing of your own values on others regardless of their beliefs, yet you complain about Muslims supposedly doing the same. Cognitive dissonance much? I don't speak for Sudan or Pakistan. There is plenty injustice against the Muslims there as it is, from long standing western-backed military regimes. Hopefully this changes soon. & there is plenty injustice in the West too, in which many countries there blasphemy laws.
- As to your question, in Sharia -not that Pakistan or Sudan necessarily abide by it- being a subject of an Islamic state grants you inviolability in the 6 sacred necessities (Religion, Life, Reason, Progeny, Wealth & Honor), either by being Muslim (inviolability of faith) or Dhimmi (inviolability of protection). If a Christian murders a Muslim, they don't get away with it because 'Sharia doesn't apply to them'. If a Christian transgresses against Muslims violating their basic rights, then they lose their own inviolability too (Muslims are not allowed to transgress against Christians either). Life is the only right to which there is consensus among the scholars regarding this inviolability, there is difference of opinion as to the other rights. That is, murder = loss of inviolability. If a Christian violates a Muslim's right of property or progeny or honor, different schools have different takes on this, some judge based on Christian values, some judge based on Muslim values. For instance, if a Christian fornicates with a Muslim you punish the Muslim, but do you punish the Christian? Or if a Christian steals form the Muslim, do you severe their hands in accordance with Sharia or do you punish them in accordance to their own laws? Blasphemy against the Prophet (pbuh) (or God or the prophets) is transgression against the Religion & Honor of Muslims. In the Hanafi school there are no blasphemy penalties against non-Muslims, because they deem them unaccountable for what they don't even believe in. But in the Hanbali school for instance, blaspheming against the Prophet (pbuh) implies invalidation of your inviolability, unless you repent.
Further, I do not dispute that there are 'non-extreme' interpretations of the verses trotted out to 'prove' Islam is violent. But it isn't just Islamophobes who prefer simple, violent interpretations is it? It seems that Muslims are increasingly influenced by the simple. literal interpreations and less by subtle, progressive interpretations. Can you comment on that?
- It was never about "extreme" & "non-extreme" interpretation. That's a relative notion anyways. It's about *authoritative* interpretation whatever that might be, not "progressive" bs interpretations either. In this sense, many Muslims have strayed away from the traditional Islam & scholarship into a Protestantist way of approaching religion, either towards superficial sterile interpretation (like Wahabism) or towards liberal western-compliant interpretation. Traditional authority in Islam has been struggling the past century, especially after the fall of the Ottoman Empire & the mass decimation of Madrasah system by the colonialists. You have the Salafis saying, 'we don't need the traditional schools, everyone can interpret the Quran & Hadith, we only follow the Prophet not schools', whereas in reality they are following their own superficial & ignorant understanding instead of following thousands & thousands of highly qualified scholars throughout history accumulating in these schools. Then you have the liberal Muslims who have zero scholarship & zero qualification trying their hardest to bend scripture to comfort to western lifestyle, whatever that might be at the time. Before divorce was allowed in Europe, they were talking about how bad it is. Once it was allowed, they switched to making a case of how good it is. Basically, slaves of the west. I don't blame them, it's very hard to resist the times.
-->
@Stephen
Yes I know. It shouldn't be allowed that one can bury conversations or posts that they are not comfortable with. But there you are.
- Indeed! As you conveniently buried & deleted parts of my post you're uncomfortable with.... without even addressing.
This thread is done anyway.
- Yep, run away!
The Myth of the "Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg&t=114s
- Yeah, AGAIN these are the parts you deleted:
LOL! Radical Muslim = wanting Sharia as their law in their own country?? LMAO. This makes the overwhelming majority of Christians radical, most Christians want the Bible as their law, especially in South America & Africa. Even in the US, 57% of republicans want to abolish the constitution & make the Bible national religion:
Most Christians want their Bible as their law too. Even that 0.001% of Muslims in your country who want Sharia there, it's not even applicable to non-Muslims. The difference is, your countries actually invade Muslim countries & bomb them -or the very least pressure them- to impose your own ways on them...
-->
@Yassine
There is no crisis of authority in the Orthodox Church. The crisis is only among the heterodox, and they are outside the church. If they were with the church, maybe they wouldn't be so confounded trying to appear relevant to an increasingly pagan culture.
And even though we have many different autocephalous churches, we have an amazing doctrinal consistency. An amazingly consistent writing out put. And while you could tell how heterodox churches have changed by reading their literature over time, we still have writings that read like the writings of the early church. It is obvious that we share the same faith.
Part of me always kind of cringes when we are compared to the heterodox, because it is debatable whether or not they are even Christian. They are not with the church. Jow can you be a Christian if you are not with the church? But we still hope for reunion. It will not be through the compromise of our faith, it will only be in the adoption of Orthodox Christianity.
-->
@Mopac
There is no crisis of authority in the Orthodox Church. The crisis is only among the heterodox, and they are outside the church. If they were with the church, maybe they wouldn't be so confounded trying to appear relevant to an increasingly pagan culture.
- In the same way there is no crisis of authority in Traditional Islam, it's business as usual. But indeed there is a serious crisis of authority for Muslims in general, as it is for Christians in general.
And even though we have many different autocephalous churches, we have an amazing doctrinal consistency. An amazingly consistent writing out put. And while you could tell how heterodox churches have changed by reading their literature over time, we still have writings that read like the writings of the early church. It is obvious that we share the same faith.
- That's a good thing. Traditional Islam is a living tradition, a tradition 1400 years old seamless & alive.
Part of me always kind of cringes when we are compared to the heterodox, because it is debatable whether or not they are even Christian. They are not with the church. Jow can you be a Christian if you are not with the church? But we still hope for reunion. It will not be through the compromise of our faith, it will only be in the adoption of Orthodox Christianity.
- Other churches make very similar claims as well.
Everyone is now picturing a talking Church.
-->
@Yassine
Both history and The Truth is on the side of The Orthodox Catholic Church. There is no other church that can claim what we do and back it up.
-->
@Yassine
As to your question, in Sharia -not that Pakistan or Sudan necessarily abide by it- being a subject of an Islamic state grants you inviolability in the 6 sacred necessities (Religion, Life, Reason, Progeny, Wealth & Honor), either by being Muslim (inviolability of faith) or Dhimmi (inviolability of protection). If a Christian murders a Muslim, they don't get away with it because 'Sharia doesn't apply to them'.
Gillian Gibbons and Asia Bibi were not murderers. What they actually did was not wicked or evil and a thousand things worse than that happen every day and nobody notices. Were there no rapes or murders on the day Gilliam named a stuffed toy 'Mohammed'? No-one was defraued or paid a bribe that day? But it was Gillians trivial case that caused a mob - estimated at 10,000 strong - to gather and bay for blood.
A lesson on the principle of inviolability and the difference between Hanafi and Hanbali jurisprudence doesn't explain why there were days of rioting over a village peasant's alleged passing remark. May be to explain that we need an insight into the 'realpolitics' of the Islamic world, not its theology.
-->
@Yassine
run away
From what. You? You who tells lies repeatedly and puts new meaning and definitions to you own fkn vile book to hide the fact that it is vile, barbaric and stuck in the 7th century. Don't make me laugh. You think much too highly of yourself you clown. You are no better at defending your barbaric ideology than any other apologist for this death cult;Islam..
Yeah, AGAIN these are the parts you deleted:
No I didn't. I addressed the relevant part. And I will do it again for you now.
You wrote:
LOL! Radical Muslim = wanting Sharia as their law in their own country?? LMAO.
I replied;
"And mine".
Most Christians want their Bible as their law too.
Christians In Christian country maybe do live by biblical law in part but also by the law of the land that supersedes religious ' law'. I won't argue that some English law maybe did find its roots in biblical law such as the fkn obvious "thou shalt not kill". But I can assure you that there are no laws telling Christians to go out into the world and rob rape and maim and murder anyone who isn't Christian or refuses to believe in the Christ as the god in the barbaric vile book the quran commands. So fk off. you have no argument here.
PEACEFUL MY ARSE! “We are commanded to terrorise the disbelievers”
"Allah commanded us to TERRORIZE the Infidels"
PEACEFUL MY ARSE! APOSTASY. “he wants to leave Islam, what do we do? :KILL HIM” 2:32 onwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPCLY2MKRCc
-->
@keithprosser
But it was Gillians trivial case that caused a mob - estimated at 10,000 strong - to gather and bay for blood.
Other than that they are nice fluffy "moderate muslims" on the whole.
I really think you should listen to that radio program.
I responded in a new thread to your request to listen to your link here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2176/drop-the-moderate-keithprosser-link-pt1
Please afford me the same courtesy.
-->
@Stephen
Christians In Christian country maybe do live by biblical law in part but also by the law of the land that supersedes religious ' law'. I won't argue that some English law maybe did find its roots in biblical law such as the fkn obvious "thou shalt not kill". But I can assure you that there are no laws telling Christians to go out into the world and rob rape and maim and murder anyone who isn't Christian or refuses to believe in the Christ as the god in the barbaric vile book the quran commands. So fk off. you have no argument here
The church can inform the state. The government is a secular institution. Secular law does not supersede moral imperative.
-->
@Snoopy
And Government make the laws.
-->
@Stephen
I won't argue that some English law maybe did find its roots in biblical law such as the fkn obvious "thou shalt not kill".
I seriously doubt it was lawful to kill people in England before it was Christianised! A better example of bible-rooted laws are the anti-witchcraft statutes passed in Europeand America inspired by Ex 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', which resulted in thousands of innocent people suffering horrible executions. Theocracy sucks, whatever the religion.
I seriously doubt it was lawful to kill people in England before it was Christianised!
Indeed. As I am sure it was unlawful to kill before Moses said it was. In fact Moses killed before he said "thou shalt not kill".
I responded in a new thread to your request to listen to your link here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2176/drop-the-moderate-keithprosser-link-pt1
Please afford me the same courtesy.
-->
@Yassine
That being the case, there is plenty of room to allow so called "extremists" to get away with what they do.- That's the case for non-traditional Islam, like Wahabism -who resemble Protestants in their approach & methodology.
It seems so obvious all of a sudden.
If you want to know what Muslims think, try asking one. If you want to know what Scientologists think, try asking one.
I appreciate your contribution to the conversation.
-->
@Yassine
I believe Judaism has a similar system.Only authoritative opinions & rulings are acceptable in the religion.
The fragmentary Oral Law passed down from generation to generation was assembled in a collection know as the Mishna.
The Mishna resulted in the creation of the Talmud, which is a commentary on the Mishna. The words of scholars (amoraim) who studied the Mishna, made comments explaining the Oral Law, this became known as the Gemara or Talmud.
When the Jews returned from Babylon, the Torah was the sole authority, but the people needed to understand and apply the meanings to the new situations following the fall of Babylon. The Midrash and Targums helped them to apply the Torah to their lives.
Today, the Hasidic branch of Orthodox Judaism and Kabbala both look to this [the Zohar] book for instruction and guidance. [LINK]
-->
@Yassine
If a person can lose their own inviolability, it doesn't sound very inviolable.
It sounds more like conditional human rights.
-->
@Yassine
Well stated.- It was never about "extreme" & "non-extreme" interpretation. That's a relative notion anyways. It's about *authoritative* interpretation whatever that might be, not "progressive" bs interpretations either. In this sense, many Muslims have strayed away from the traditional Islam & scholarship into a Protestantist way of approaching religion, either towards superficial sterile interpretation (like Wahabism) or towards liberal western-compliant interpretation. Traditional authority in Islam has been struggling the past century, especially after the fall of the Ottoman Empire & the mass decimation of Madrasah system by the colonialists. You have the Salafis saying, 'we don't need the traditional schools, everyone can interpret the Quran & Hadith, we only follow the Prophet not schools', whereas in reality they are following their own superficial & ignorant understanding instead of following thousands & thousands of highly qualified scholars throughout history accumulating in these schools. Then you have the liberal Muslims who have zero scholarship & zero qualification trying their hardest to bend scripture to comfort to western lifestyle, whatever that might be at the time. Before divorce was allowed in Europe, they were talking about how bad it is. Once it was allowed, they switched to making a case of how good it is. Basically, slaves of the west. I don't blame them, it's very hard to resist the times.
-->
@keithprosser
A lesson on the principle of inviolability and the difference between Hanafi and Hanbali jurisprudence doesn't explain why there were days of rioting over a village peasant's alleged passing remark. May be to explain that we need an insight into the 'realpolitics' of the Islamic world, not its theology.
Dumb stuff goes viral. Rioting is often simply disempowered groups blindly grasping for any excuse to lash out and manifest their simmering frustration.
You know, kinda like that Evergreen State College thing.
It is important to clearly distinguish between a proximate cause and a root cause.
-->
@keithprosser
Ex 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', which resulted in thousands of innocent people suffering horrible executions. Theocracy sucks, whatever the religion.
Good point. When will the Christian masses rise up to protect the witches!!!
-->
@3RU7AL
Only authoritative opinions & rulings are acceptable in the religion.
That's bit of a 'well, duh', isn't it? No-one expect un-authoratative opinions to carry weight!
The problem is it doesn't stop people arguing about what is authorative! If you are of one school the writings for your position are authoratative and the ones against your position are heretical, and - of course - vice versa. Yassine says "Then you have the liberal Muslims who have zero scholarship & zero qualification" is that objective or one-sided partisan rhetoric?
If you want to know what Muslims think, try asking one. If you want to know what Scientologists think, try asking one.
I think the only person I'd trust to be objective about this stuff is a Martian.
-->
@3RU7AL
When will the Christian masses rise up to protect the witches!!!
They did, and they won, you clown,
-->
@keithprosser
--> @3RU7AL wrote ; If you want to know what Muslims think, try asking one. If you want to know what Scientologists think, try asking one.I think the only person I'd trust to be objective about this stuff is a Martian.
I think you just may regret saying that, Keith?
-->
@Stephen
And Government make the laws.
Oh yeah, whoops! There's those minor details.